Digital Analytics is a relatively new field, and as such, we can learn a lot from other disciplines. This series of posts looks at some classic studies from social psychology, and what we analysts can learn from them.

The Magic Number 7 (or, 7 +/- 2)

In 1956, George A. Miller conducted an experiment that found that the number of items a person can hold in working memory is seven, plus or minus two. However, all “items” are not created equal – our brain is able to “chunk” information to retain more. For example, if asked to remember seven words or even seven quotes, we can do so (we’re not limited to seven letters) because each word is an individual item or “chunk” of information. Similarly, we may be able to remember seven two-digit numbers, because each digit is not considered its own item.

Why this matters for analysts: This is critical to keep in mind as we are presenting data. Stephen Few argues that a dashboard must be confined to one page or screen. This is due to this limitation of working memory. You can’t expect people to look at a dashboard and draw conclusions about relationships between separate charts, tables, or numbers, while flipping back and forth constantly between pages, because this requires they retain too much information in working memory. Similarly, expecting stakeholders to recall and connect the dots between what you presented eleven slides ago is putting too great a pressure on working memory. We must work with people’s natural capabilities, and not against them.

When The Facts Don’t Matter

In 1957, Leon Festinger studied a Doomsday cult who believed that aliens would rescue them from a coming flood. Unsurprisingly, no flood (nor aliens) eventuated. In their book, When Prophecy Fails, Festinger et al commented, “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point … Suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”

In a 1967 study by Brock & Balloun, subjects listened to several messages, but the recording was staticky. However, the subjects could press a button to clear up the static. They found that people selectively chose to listen to the message that affirmed their existing beliefs. For example, smokers chose to listen more closely when the content disputed a smoking-cancer link.

However, Chanel, Luchini, Massoni, Vergnaud (2010) found that if we are given an opportunity to discuss the evidence and exchange arguments with someone (rather than just reading the evidence and pondering it alone) we are more likely to change our minds in the face of opposing facts.

Why this matters for analysts: Even if your data seems self-evident, if it goes against what the business has known, thought, or believed for some time, you may need more data to support your contrary viewpoint. You may also want to allow for plenty of time for discussion, rather than simply sending out your findings, as those discussions are critical to getting buy-in for this new viewpoint.

Stay tuned!

More to come tomorrow.

What are your thoughts? Do these pivotal social psychology experiments help to explain some of the challenges you face with analyzing and presenting data?

4 Comments

Soul ShaolinJuly 20th, 2017

Thanks Michele for this article. I always feel like the one page dashboard rule is too strict and I think you explain it very well why. Of course it’s always better to keep it shorter but like you said it’s not the number of charts, tables or numbers that matter but the number of “chunk” of information you are trying to convey. You can have a very effective 6 pages dashboard if each page goes toward one “chunk” of information. I mean you can expect people to look at a dashboard and draw conclusions about relationships between separate charts, tables, or numbers if they are well connected between each other. in other words, adding global scorecard of Pageviews, Boucerate, Pages/session, Avg. time on page, etc… at the beginning of a dashboard unnecessarily consume brain’s attention. Can’t wait to read what’s coming next !

michelejkissJuly 21st, 2017

So, yes and no 🙂

Correct, it’s not the number of charts that are the issue, but it *is* about being able to see them all at once, so yes, one screen/page does still matter.

This is where it becomes somewhat semantic. Doesn’t mean you can’t ever display more than one page – you just can’t legitimately call it a “dashboard.” It’s a report.

Keep in mind a dashboard should only be the most important things you need, to spot issues. (Going back to the car dashboard analogy – a car dashboard doesn’t tell you everything with the car. It’s not a full diagnostic panel.) Once you get in to six pages, it’s probably including a lot of “supporting metrics.” Not saying there isn’t a purpose for that, but it no longer serves the same purpose as being a “dashboard.”

Second post published today, BTW! Thanks so much for reading, and especially for your comment!

joyce wodsJuly 29th, 2017

Researching, compiling and presenting data to persuade, convince or otherwise manipulate the presentation has to follow these guidelines to appeal to a diverse audience.

joyce wodsJuly 29th, 2017

There are many pitfalls, obstacles and contradictory opinions, we should use to analyze the data’s potential

Michele Kiss is a recognized digital analytics leader, with experience in web, mobile, marketing and social analytics. Her experience ranges across a variety of verticals, including ecommerce, telecommunications and technology, automotive, restaurant, travel and home building, as a client-side, consultant and agency practitioner.
As an employee of Analytics Demystified, Michele is a member of the Digital Analytics Association (DAA), an Adobe Business Partner, and a Google Analytics Certified Partner.